SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
MUNNEY ANSARI AND 3 OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE AND 3 OTHERS – Respondent


Court No. - 80

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1062 of 2020

Petitioner :- Munney Ansari And 3 Others

Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Aman Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

Heard Sri Aman Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1, 3 and 4 and

Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the

respondent No.2.

Sri Aman Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners

contends that the interim order was granted by the Board of

Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad in Revision No.19 of

2008-09 (Babu Vs. Gaon Sabha and another) on 16.03.2009.

The interim order was extended from time to time. However,

the interim order was not extended from the year 2018 due to

various reasons. It is contended that stay extension application

is not being heard because of absence of the member of the

Board of Revenue and for other reasons. The petitioners are

being threatened with dispossession in absence of the interim

order.

I see merit in the submission of Sri Aman Srivastava, learned

counsel for the petitioners that the remedy of re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top